**
@Clarkie**
Well, I suppose I could visit the link shown on the image and find out the answer by cheating, but I'll play fair.

Hmmm, tricky, there's something about the hair that looks seperate in luminance from the rest of it, so for that reason (and that reason alone) I suspect it might be CG.  That said, I see stuff that are real photographs and it has that same effect, and there's nothing to say that if it's a photo, that the levels weren't tweaked in some way.

This is the hardest one I've come across so I think that by default I'd say it was a photo because that can only be an extremely deserved compliment if it turns out not to be.  I hope I'm wrong because I've never been wrong yet on these things (and I've been waiting years hoping to be wrong).  If that's a render then it's far and away the most convincing CG human I've ever seen, totally incredible!

So my opinion: it's either a photo with tweaked levels or it's absolutley the best I've ever seen in CG

@Wolf
Yup, that perfect, too clean stuff isn't very nice unless it's something specifically suited to it.  Cameras are already way above what I want from resolution.  No matter what camera I've had I always find myself mashing it up, doing my best to give it that analogue feel (I really enjoy doing that though, it's one of my favourite passtimes - lol). 

The Hag movie I'm going to be watching tonight was shot at 15FPS using a resolution of 320x240, and I'm guessing if anything, it'll just add to the enjoyment of it - make it more sort of raw.